Early Numeracy Intervention Grade 1
Study: Bryant et al. (2011)

Summary

The Early Numeracy Interventions (ENI) program was developed to provide teachers with evidence-based instructional materials for teaching students who struggle with primary level numeracy concepts and procedures, while applying these skills to mathematics problem solving. The ENI program provides instructional materials designed to remediate and strengthen numerical competence for students who need supplemental, intensive, ongoing mathematics instruction. The targeted program concepts and procedures were identified based upon our investigations with students in the primary grades, and discussions with teachers, curriculum specialists, and content experts.

Target Grades:
1
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with intellectual disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
  • Other: lessons that also focus on developing early number sense
Where to Obtain:
Psycho-Educational Services
5114 Balcones Woods Dr. Suite 307-163 Austin, TX 78759
512-699-9381
psy-educational.com
Initial Cost:
$189.00 per teacher
Replacement Cost:
Free

The kit includes a spiral boundTeacher’s Manual (11 units, 8 lessons per unit) and CD-ROM, which contains the Teacher Booklet, Student Booklet, Unit Checks for 11 units;

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
Less than 1 hour of training

Instructor training will consist of instructions in the training manual. The components of the program and specific features of the intervention will be discussed. A video demonstrating how tutors used the materials will also be available on the website.


Identified students with mathematics difficulties were in the tutoring groups thus the materials have been tested with the target student population.

Access to Technical Support:
They will be able to access information about the program through Psycho-educational services website. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the company will answer questions.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
25
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
19
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
  • Computer or tablet

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Early Numeracy Interventions (ENI) program was developed to provide teachers with evidence-based instructional materials for teaching students who struggle with primary level numeracy concepts and procedures, while applying these skills to mathematics problem solving. The ENI program provides instructional materials designed to remediate and strengthen numerical competence for students who need supplemental, intensive, ongoing mathematics instruction. The targeted program concepts and procedures were identified based upon our investigations with students in the primary grades, and discussions with teachers, curriculum specialists, and content experts.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
selected Other
If other, please describe:
lessons that also focus on developing early number sense

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
5114 Balcones Woods Dr. Suite 307-163 Austin, TX 78759
Phone Number
512-699-9381
Website
psy-educational.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$189.00
Unit of cost
teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The kit includes a spiral boundTeacher’s Manual (11 units, 8 lessons per unit) and CD-ROM, which contains the Teacher Booklet, Student Booklet, Unit Checks for 11 units;

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   4-5

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
25
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
19
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
Yes

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Less than 1 hour of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
Instructor training will consist of instructions in the training manual. The components of the program and specific features of the intervention will be discussed. A video demonstrating how tutors used the materials will also be available on the website.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
Identified students with mathematics difficulties were in the tutoring groups thus the materials have been tested with the target student population.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

They will be able to access information about the program through Psycho-educational services website. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the company will answer questions.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Hughes, K., Porterfield, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). Effects of an early numeracy intervention on the performance of first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7-23.

Study Information

Study Citations

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Hughes, K., Porterfield, J. & Gersten, R. (2011). Effects of an Early Numeracy Intervention on the Performance of First-Grade Students With Mathematics Difficulties . Exceptional Children, 78(1) 7-23.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
All students in first grade in 10 elementary schools in the same school district who had parent consent and assent were selected to participate in the study.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Two main considerations drove sample selection: (a) maintaining sufficient power and (b) reliably assessing risk. Of the initial pool of students (N = 771), the lowest 35% (n = 269) was identified as being “at-risk” based on an initial administration of the Texas Early Mathematics Inventories-Progress Monitoring measures (TEMI-PM; University of Texas System & Texas Education Agency, 2007a; refer to the Measures for further details about this test) in the fall (September). Students were administered four additional TEMI-PM probes (alternate forms of the original measure used for student selection) over a 3-week period to determine whether there were false positives among the initial pool of students. False positives are a particular concern given the generally “chaotic” nature of early achievement and the increased possibility of falsely identifying students as being “at-risk” when they were merely distracted, anxious, or unfamiliar with the testing protocols. Growth modeling (with continuous outcomes and auto-correlated residuals) was used to estimate case-level factor scores for intercept and slope for each of the 238 cases using PLUS 4.1 (preliminary analyses suggested a statistically significant positive trend in scores over time, on average thus, a growth model approach was preferred over a confirmatory factor model). Intercept was conceptualized as the last of the four additional TEMI-PM measures (beyond the TEMI-PM used to initially identify the lowest 35%). Estimated time 4 scores were used to make final sample selection. The cut score was selected based on the probabilities of diagnostic accuracy (i.e., likelihood ratio [LR]) derived using receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis. Using this procedure, 14 students were found to be false positives and were eliminated from the sample. A concern with accuracy and the need to maintain an adequate sample size both influenced our sampling strategy. Preliminary power analyses suggested a sample size of 240, with 160 in the treatment condition and 80 in the comparison group. The initial pool of eligible students was only 238, so our strategy was to identify students who clearly were not at risk, based on their estimated score at time 4 and a very conservative risk threshold (LR: negative of 0.70). The final sample (n = 224:151 treatment and 73 control) identified for treatment and control conditions was associated with a minimal detectable effect size of approximately 0.40, assuming 0.80 power and 45 instructional groups with five students in each group.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
Early Numeracy Intervention Grade 1

Specify which condition is the control condition:

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1 151 73 0.00
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability 151 73 0.00

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female
Male

Mean Effect Size

0.00

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

No significant differences were found between groups in the fall on the TEMI-PM and TEMI-O.

Design Full Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Simple random assignment of students to condition was completed using a random number generator in Statistical Analysis Software.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
4
Minimum group size
4
Maximum group size
5

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
19.00
Sessions per week
4.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
28.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The research team included two full- time intervention coordinators and five graduate research assistants (GRAs) who were doctoral and master’s students in the Department of Special Education; all of the GRAs held teaching credentials or were completing a teaching certification program. This research team was also responsible for conducting the intervention. At the beginning of the academic year, the principal investigator provided a 3-hour training on the intervention lessons and accompanying instructional materials. This training consisted of an explanation of the content and review and modeling of systematic instruction. Following this training, the research team practiced the lessons with one another. Prior to intervention, the tutors taught a lesson and received feedback from experienced tutors who were using the same lessons with a group of students. Throughout the school year, training sessions were conducted before each intervention unit (seven total sessions). Tutors were visited weekly and team meetings were held to solve issues.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Each tutor was observed by research staff for three sessions during the 19-week intervention to assess the quality (i.e., fidelity) of specific implementation performance indicators. Quality of Implementation (QoI) indicators included the degree to which tutors (a) followed the scripted lessons (e.g., modeling, guided practice, independent practice); (b) implemented the features of explicit, systematic instruction (e.g., pacing, error correction); (c) managed student behavior (e.g., use of reinforcers and redirection); and (d) managed the lesson (e.g., use of timer, smooth transitions between booster lessons).

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Performance indicators were rated on a 0-to-3 point scale, in which 0 = Not at All, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Some of the Time, and 3 = Most of the Time. Results were shared with the tutors and areas in need of further training and recommendations for improved performance were discussed. Results on the QoI showed average ratings exceeding 2.5 in all areas, with no single rating of <2.0. The majority of ratings were 3.0. These results across tutors show that there was a high degree of fidelity in the implementation of the booster lessons.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Yes

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
A series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with the TEMI-PM Fall Total Score as the covariate was used to evaluate statistical differences between groups and to maximize power of the design. The increased Type I error rate associated with multiple comparisons was addressed using the Benjamani-Hochberg (1995) correction, which controls for false discovery rate. Two procedures were conducted, one to evaluate statistical significance of the eight non-composite scores (i.e., TEMI-PM: MC, NS, PV, and ASC; SAT-10: MPS and MP; TEMI-O: computation and problem solving) and the other to evaluate group difference on the composite scores of the TEMI-PM Total Score, TEMI-O Total Score, and SAT-10 Total Score (because composite scores are the sum of two or more non-composite measures, the procedures were separated to maintain independence of observations). Benjamani-Hochberg does not produce a new p-value. Instead, it indicates whether a given finding is significant at the specified level after correcting for multiple comparisons according to pi’= i/M, where i is the rank of pi, the original p-value, M is the total number of findings within the domain, and  is the target p-value. Assumptions regarding homogeneity of regression were evaluated for all outcomes. There were no violations. We calculated Hedges g (g*) for small sample sizes using the covariate adjusted posttest mean difference standardized with unadjusted pooled with-in groups standard deviation (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.